[Qgis-developer] Reliable way to determine a groupIndex in the legend tree

[kimaidou]

+ 1 for not having an unchecked layer non visible, even if the group is not
checked -> this will confuse users
For radio-like interaction, I think it would be nice inside a group. If you
want to use it for layers outside a group or for group, we should really
find a way to make the "radio" items visible (background color for selected
layers or groups with radio behaviour ?).
It would indeed be great to let the user choose 2 to n layers (or groups) ,
right-click and set "radio button behaviour" or "exclusive visibility".


2013/10/11 Duarte Carreira <DCarreira at edia.pt>

> An unchecked layer is never visible... that would really confuse users...
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: Bernhard Ströbl [mailto:bernhard.stroebl at jena.de]
> Enviada: sexta-feira, 11 de Outubro de 2013 11:25
> Para: qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> Assunto: Re: [Qgis-developer] Reliable way to determine a groupIndex in
> the legend tree
>
> this was the original proposal:
>
> Am 11.10.2013 11:22, schrieb Sandro Santilli:
>  > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:13:03AM +0000, Duarte Carreira wrote:
>  >> The group checkbox, imho, should *not always* switch children on/off.
> You should have a modifier to get this as a secondary behavior, like
> pressing the ctrl key when (un)checking the group checkbox. The primary
> behavior of the group switch should be to make the children invisible or
> visible, regardless of the children's visibility being on or off.
>
> I understand this in the way I wrote in my last message. You would make
> the children visible/unvisible "regardless of the children's visibility
> being on or off". This results in the two cases I described.
> Well, to be honest there are two more cases, but they are not critical :-)
> 3) group is checked and layer ist checked
> 4) group is unchecked and layer is uncheched
>
>  >>
>  >> In the primary behavior when the parent is turned OFF, the children
> are not drawn but retain their checked or uncheck status.
>  >> If you use the secondary behavior then unchecking the parent will
> uncheck the children. Same would apply when checking the parent on.
>  >
>  > Agreed, sounds like a sensible behavior to me.
>
> Am 11.10.2013 12:09, schrieb Sandro Santilli:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:02:08PM +0200, Bernhard Ströbl wrote:
> >
> >> We would have these two cases:
> >> 1) Group is checked and although layer is unchecked it is visible
> >
> > I don't think this case exists.
>
> Why not? You check/uncheck a group and the layers are visible/invisible
> depending on the group status not their individual status.
>
> > Are you saying you _want_ this to be possible ?
> > Because for me an unchecked layer should _never_ be shown.
>
> Same for me, _plus_ a checked layer should _always_ be shown
> >
> >> 2) Group is unchecked and although layer is checked it is not visible
> >
> > This is a possible case, IMHO, which calls for the "half-checked" widget.
> >
> > --strk;
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus
> > signature database 8904 (20131011) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Mail Security, version of virus signature
> database 8904 (20131011) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Mail Security.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20131011/ca9b5610/attachment-0001.html>